Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is 'crime of violence' in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague, given the Court's holding in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018) that the identical definition in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague? 2. Ifa completed offense categorically has the use or threat of "violent force" "as an element," is the attempted commission of that offense categorically a "crime of violence" simply because of the defendant's "intent" to commit every element of the crime? Or must the "substantial step" required for an attempt offense itself be categorically violent to meet the elements clause? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no
2019-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-04
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2018-12-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 4, 2019.
2018-12-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 6, 2018 to January 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 6, 2018.
2018-11-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 16, 2018 to December 6, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-10-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 16, 2018.
2018-10-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 17, 2018 to November 16, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-09-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 17, 2018)